Section 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) | Disposal of property

Synopsis

• Bare Act: The exact text of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Introduction: Brief overview of the Hindu Marriage Act and the role of Section 27.
• Meaning/Definition/Explanation: Explanation of Section 27 and its focus on joint matrimonial property.
• Interpretation: How courts interpret and apply Section 27, with judicial insights.
• Types/Classifications: Types of property covered under Section 27.
• Case Law: Key judicial decisions illustrating the application of Section 27.
• Multiple Choice Questions: Practice questions for All India Bar Exam preparation.
• Questions to Think About: Reflective questions to deepen understanding.

Bare Act

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Disposal of property.—In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.

Introduction

When a marriage ends in divorce or judicial separation, many issues arise, like maintenance, custody of children, and property distribution. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 helps the court deal with jointly owned property that was gifted during the time of marriage. This section makes sure that neither the husband nor the wife walks away unfairly from a marriage when such property is in dispute.

Meaning / Definition / Explanation

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the disposal of property that is jointly owned by a husband and wife.

For example, if a couple received gold jewellery or a house as a wedding gift meant for both, Section 27 allows the court to decide who gets what if the marriage breaks down. It’s not about personal assets like a husband’s salary or a wife’s inherited property—only joint property matters here.

Interpretation

The courts focus on property “presented at or about the time of marriage,” which usually means gifts given during the wedding or soon after. If both husband and wife have joint rights over something that was gifted to them at the time of marriage (like jewelry, household items, or even cash), then the court can decide how to divide or return that property in a way that seems fair.

Some key points from court interpretations:

• The timing of the gift is important—should be during or near the time of marriage.
• Property must be joint, not individually owned.
• This section helps to avoid multiple separate civil suits for recovery of property.

This does not include all types of properties, but only those that are:

• Gifted at/around the time of marriage, and
• Belong jointly to both spouses.

The court has the power to divide this property fairly when granting divorce or other reliefs under this Act. The legislative intent behind Section 27 is to avoid long, messy disputes over joint property during divorce. It’s like the law saying, “Let’s make this as fair and quick as possible so both sides can move on.”

Types / Classifications

This section does not mention different types, but for better understanding, we can divide such property into:

1. Wedding Gifts: Jewellery, cash, or household items given to the couple during the marriage ceremony.
2. Jointly Owned Assets: Property like a house or car registered in both names, gifted around the time of marriage.
3. Stridhan (with caution): While Stridhan (a woman’s personal property) is generally not covered, if it’s given as a joint gift to both spouses, it might fall under Section 27.
4. Other Contributions: Assets like a joint savings account created during the marriage, if intended for both.

The key is that the property must be jointly owned and linked to the marriage. If it’s only in one spouse’s name or unrelated to the marriage, Section 27 doesn’t apply.

Case Law

Here are two important cases that explain how Section 27 is used:

1. Kamta Prasad v. Om Wati (1972): In this case, the court ruled that Section 27 only applies to property that is jointly owned by the husband and wife. The wife claimed certain gifts as her Stridhan, but the court said that only property clearly meant for both spouses could be divided under this section. This case made it clear that individual property is outside Section 27’s scope.
2. Sangeeta v. Balbir Singh (1990): Here, the court divided jewellery given during the marriage as a joint gift. The husband argued it was his, but the court said that since it was presented to both at the wedding, Section 27 allowed a fair split. The judge looked at what was “just and proper” and gave the wife a share.
3. Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705: The Supreme Court said stridhan (gifts to the bride) is the woman’s absolute property and can’t be taken away by the husband. Section 27, however, deals with joint property, not individual stridhan.
4. Deepa v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 2010 MP 144: The Madhya Pradesh High Court said Section 27 is not limited to only movable items. Even immovable property can be included if jointly owned and gifted during marriage.
5. Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, AIR 2006 SC 1662: Court emphasized the importance of giving just and proper relief regarding jointly owned marital gifts.

These cases show that courts focus on fairness and proof of joint ownership when applying Section 27.

Multiple Choice Questions (for All India Bar Exam Preparation)

1. What does Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act deal with?
   a) Maintenance for the wife
   b) Disposal of joint property
   c) Custody of children
   d) Grounds for divorce
   Answer: b) Disposal of joint property
2. Which property is covered under Section 27?
   a) Property owned only by the husband
   b) Property presented at or about the time of marriage, jointly owned
   c) Property inherited by the wife
   d) Property purchased after divorce
   Answer: b) Property presented at or about the time of marriage, jointly owned
3. What discretion does the court have under Section 27?
   a) To award maintenance
   b) To make just and proper provisions for joint property
   c) To decide child custody
   d) To cancel the marriage
   Answer: b) To make just and proper provisions for joint property
4. In which case was it clarified that Section 27 applies only to jointly owned property?
   a) Sangeeta v. Balbir Singh
   b) Kamta Prasad v. Om Wati
   c) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
   d) None of the above
   Answer: b) Kamta Prasad v. Om Wati
5. Which of the following is not true under Section 27?
   a) It covers property owned by both spouses.
   b) It allows the court to divide joint gifts.
   c) It applies to property gifted 10 years after marriage.
   d) It is used during divorce or related proceedings.
   Answer: c) It applies to property gifted 10 years after marriage.

Questions to Think About

1. Why do you think the law limits Section 27 to joint property and not individual assets?
2. How can a court decide what is “just and proper” in dividing property? What factors might they consider?
3. Should Stridhan be included under Section 27 if it’s given as a joint gift? Why or why not?
4. How does Section 27 help couples avoid long disputes during divorce?